4 ms·

> I believe in free market (not ideal free market). Nothing about proprietary software reflects a free market. The entire proprietary software industry can onl

by zanny 13y ago

> I believe in free market (not ideal free market). Nothing about proprietary software reflects a free market. The entire proprietary software industry can only exist through the existence and practice of copyright law. Nothing about copyright law has anything to do with the usual tenants of free markets - voluntary exchange, property rights, and informed transactions. It is just made up rules with (maybe) good intentions and catastrophic consequences. > Why should we label proprietary software as enemy? Because it violates Richard Stallmans, and anyone who agrees with him (so at least the entire FSF and GNU project) ethics. > I also think proprietary softwares have value. The act of being proprietary adds no value to any software. It only serves to take away potential value in the ability to trust, understand, reuse, and modify it. The only exception is software that only functions through its obfuscations, such as DRM, and that entire class of software is implicitly anti-user and only functions to take away more freedom. > but at the moment this is not easy to achieve. The ease of accomplishing something should never be just cause to work for or against it. > because the features in LibreOffice is still lagging behind. I will be happy to dump Office completely if LibreOffice continue to improve. You probably (assumptions here) have done no part to fund or participate in the continued development of LibreOffice, while you have paid Microsoft for their Office suite. You are directly incentively the continued usage and development of proprietary software without doing anything for the free alternatives. Even if you have contributed to LibreOffice in some way, you are still sustaining the proprietary freedom depriving Microsoft suite through both your purchase and usage of it. > I don't see this as a violation of my freedom. Free software has three tenants - the ability to study, modify, and share software. Implicit to Steam is a violation of (at least) one of those freedoms. You are free to not consider them freedoms in your ethical outlook. > But I don't think everyone should be told to use free software. It isn't about forcing anyone to do anything, it is about removing the force already imparted upon you by proprietary software vendors that restrict your ability to modify or redistribute software. Richard Stallman (probably) doesn't give a shit if you use emacs or a competitor, as long as both are free, or at the least that you understand that you are sacrificing your freedoms to use convenient proprietary alternatives.

icebraining 13y ago
Nothing about proprietary software reflects a free market. The entire proprietary software industry can only exist through the existence and practice of copyright law. Not exactly, since Freedoms 1 and 3 could still be abridged even without copyright, by just releasing binaries.
yeukhon 13y ago
It is just made up rules with (maybe) good intentions and catastrophic consequences. Not necessarily catastrophic though I can see this as an argument to defeat patent trolls. My main point is that in a market where can freely consume a freeware, free software and fully proprietary software is a free market. A world with only free software is still one sided. The act of being proprietary adds no value to any software. It only serves to take away potential value in the ability to trust, understand, reuse, and modify it. There isn't always a need to actually understand, reuse and modify a software if the user only wants to use it. Proprietary software cannot be studied and trusted fully -- that's true, but if there is no free alternative competitive sacrificing is how we live in this world. You probably (assumptions here) have done no part to fund or participate in the continued development of LibreOffice, while you have paid Microsoft for their Office suite. You are directly incentively the continued usage and development of proprietary software without doing anything for the free alternatives. Even if you have contributed to LibreOffice in some way, you are still sustaining the proprietary freedom depriving Microsoft suite through both your purchase and usage of it. Using a software is already participating in the continued development of LibreOffice. If I could take a train to get to work in 15 minutes, why would I bike for 45 minutes to work every day? I may bike occasionally, but definitely not everyday. If LibreOffice is convinent to do everything I need to do with MS Office, I'd switch permanently. If not, they will both co-exist on my computer. How will removing MS Office do any good to free software if I don't actually write code for LibreOffice in the first place? Is there not enough people already writing code and plugins for LibreOffice suite? Sounds like free software moment is pushing people to write free software because they don't have enough developers who are willing to put time writing code for free software. Implicit to Steam is a violation of (at least) one of those freedoms. You are free to not consider them freedoms in your ethical outlook. That's why free software movement from R.S. is radical to me. It isn't about forcing anyone to do anything, it is about removing the force already imparted upon you by proprietary software vendors that restrict your ability to modify or redistribute software. The force imparted upon me is due to the fact the free alternatives aren't good enough or just don't exist. If there exists one that works really well, like proprietary software, the force is not as strong as you think. If we shall, free software is awesome, it has the ability to study and modify the software in any way the user wants, now, how do I make a living off my work?

by zanny 13y ago

icebraining 13y ago

Nothing about proprietary software reflects a free market. The entire proprietary software industry can only exist through the existence and practice of copyright law. Not exactly, since Freedoms 1 and 3 could still be abridged even without copyright, by just releasing binaries.

yeukhon 13y ago

It is just made up rules with (maybe) good intentions and catastrophic consequences. Not necessarily catastrophic though I can see this as an argument to defeat patent trolls. My main point is that in a market where can freely consume a freeware, free software and fully proprietary software is a free market. A world with only free software is still one sided. The act of being proprietary adds no value to any software. It only serves to take away potential value in the ability to trust, understand, reuse, and modify it. There isn't always a need to actually understand, reuse and modify a software if the user only wants to use it. Proprietary software cannot be studied and trusted fully -- that's true, but if there is no free alternative competitive sacrificing is how we live in this world. You probably (assumptions here) have done no part to fund or participate in the continued development of LibreOffice, while you have paid Microsoft for their Office suite. You are directly incentively the continued usage and development of proprietary software without doing anything for the free alternatives. Even if you have contributed to LibreOffice in some way, you are still sustaining the proprietary freedom depriving Microsoft suite through both your purchase and usage of it. Using a software is already participating in the continued development of LibreOffice. If I could take a train to get to work in 15 minutes, why would I bike for 45 minutes to work every day? I may bike occasionally, but definitely not everyday. If LibreOffice is convinent to do everything I need to do with MS Office, I'd switch permanently. If not, they will both co-exist on my computer. How will removing MS Office do any good to free software if I don't actually write code for LibreOffice in the first place? Is there not enough people already writing code and plugins for LibreOffice suite? Sounds like free software moment is pushing people to write free software because they don't have enough developers who are willing to put time writing code for free software. Implicit to Steam is a violation of (at least) one of those freedoms. You are free to not consider them freedoms in your ethical outlook. That's why free software movement from R.S. is radical to me. It isn't about forcing anyone to do anything, it is about removing the force already imparted upon you by proprietary software vendors that restrict your ability to modify or redistribute software. The force imparted upon me is due to the fact the free alternatives aren't good enough or just don't exist. If there exists one that works really well, like proprietary software, the force is not as strong as you think. If we shall, free software is awesome, it has the ability to study and modify the software in any way the user wants, now, how do I make a living off my work?